14

Alice Eve’s Star Trek Into Darkness Character Identified, And Klingons Confirmed

Just when you thought this morning’s new Star Trek Into Darkness had spurred enough new speculation to keep us going for the rest of the week, now we’ve got a major new bit of information, this time about who Alice Eve is playing. Her identity might or might not suggest who Cumberbatch is playing, but needless to say…

POTENTIAL SPOILERS BELOW!

There’s a press event for Star Trek Into Darkness going down this evening, and tweets from reporters in attendance have answered one major question about the Trek sequel. Alice Eve, pictured above, is apparently playing Carol Marcus, the woman who was the mother of Kirk’s son, David, in the earlier Trek films. What does this mean for Into Darkness, and with regards to Cumberbatch’s role?

The news that she’s playing a character best known from The Wrath of Khan will likely be touted as proof by the “Cumberbatch is Khan” camp, but I’m still very dubious. At the very least, if he is Khan, then the Abrams-verse Khan will be a very different character. For one thing, he’s appearing much earlier in the career of Kirk and the Enterprise crew. And he’s become a lot more, well, British. And as for Eve playing Carol Marcus, we can probably assume Kirk won’t have knocked her up with a kid yet, much less a now-grown kid. It does seem likely that she’s being positioned as a romantic interest for Kirk in this film and the likely sequels. In fact, adding her to the new canon in this film could be setting the stage for Abrams’ version of Khan on down the line, assuming they want to go in that direction. And assuming Cumberbatch isn’t playing him in Into Darkness, which I still don’t think he is.

Of course, many had previously pointed out that Eve’s character bore a striking resemblance to Dr. Dehner from “Where No Man Has Gone Before,” the episode that introduced the psychic Gary Mitchell. Honestly, at this point I’m convinced Abrams is just messing with our heads for the hell of it.

Thankfully, the Trek tweets have also shared some much more concrete information, this time regarding one of the franchise’s most iconic species. Coming Soon writer Silas Lesnick revealed that Klingons will be appearing in Into Darkness, as will the Klingon home world of Quo’nos.

 

 

 

 

From what he’s saying, I’m guessing the planet with the giant yellow window in the background, where Cumberbatch is shown fighting what appear to be Klingons, is likely taking place on Quo’nos. Check it out below.

Comments

  • http://www.djjarak.tumblr.com/ DJ Jarak

    If Klingons in this movie have cranial ridges, there must have been more timeline changes than we originally thought and far earlier in time. For those of you who didn’t watch Enterprise, they explained the lack of cranial ridges. It was due to a disease caused by Klingons tampering with genetic engineering and human augment DNA.

    • Greybeard

      That was for the ones WITHOUT ridges though, right? Because Kahless has ridges.

      • http://www.facebook.com/joe.crispen Joe Crispen

        Also, Ruffles have ridges.

      • http://www.djjarak.tumblr.com/ DJ Jarak

        Kahless lived long before the Klingons tempered with their DNA so it’s normal that he had ridges.

    • bhak1

      That was so stupid… I’m sorry but I think we all could easily accept that they didn’t have the ridges because 60s makeup was not quite as advanced as late 80s make up. They made them look more alien in TNG because they could. There was no need to make up some ridiculous “And Darth Vader built C3PO as a child and has midichlorians” BS just to explain the advancement in makeup fx over 20 years of time. I really doubt this film will even take the time to address that nonsense.

      • http://www.djjarak.tumblr.com/ DJ Jarak

        Stupid or not… which I agree that it is, it’s still apart of the canon timeline. They explained that the only reason things are different now than they were was the altered timeline caused by Spock and Nero. The altered Klingons happened happened long before then. If they wish to be consistent, they’ll have some explaining to do.

  • The Captain

    there just setting up the story to have Khan in the 3rd film. i believe this harrison name is just a ploy to cover up that Cumberbatch is playing mitchle. what would be crazy is if there combining the 2 characters of Harrison and Mitchle and just making them 1.

  • bdiddy1123

    If that truly is Carol Marcus, we all must remember “Where No Man Has Gone Before” when Gary Mitchell said to Kirk that he had set him up with “a cute little blonde lab tech.” My guess is that Cumberbatch is playing Mitchell, not Khan, nor this Harrison fellow.

  • http://twitter.com/Deggsy Deggsy

    Remember when the new Star Trek film was being touted as a gateway to telling all new adventures of the characters of Kirk, Spock and the rest? Or did I dream all that?

  • BebopHitchhiker

    “Honestly, at this point I’m convinced Abrams is just messing with our heads for the hell of it.”

    Wouldn’t surprise me in the least! And he’s probably laughing his ass off at us chasing our tails trying to figure out what’s going on, too

  • http://www.yourpredator.com Hunter Coch

    I’m firmly in the Garth camp

  • Mike D.

    Has anyone considered cumberbatch is playing his own twin. Just as plausible as every other theory out there. Mind blown.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ron.foskett.7 Ron Foskett

    Yep I’m more convinced it’s Gary Mitchell not Khan. Gary is kind of the ultimate extension of Kirk’s grandiose view of himself. Kirk may think himself indestructible up until Gary in many ways destroys himself. As for the Klingons they all look the same to me. I’m sure the makeup artists that worked on the movies/TNG era of Trek are aching to get back at it again.

  • http://twitter.com/flashfast777 Bruce

    I’m going with Gary Mitchell. A Khan story would feel like a cheap ripoff. But is a cheap ripoff beyond JJ? Not really.